EDWARDS WELL OUT AHEAD IN IOWA!

After I mentioned the polls in my earlier post, a poll released today shows that my man John Edwards has a 20 point lead over his second place opponent.

In the latest Harstad Strategic poll, John Edwards recieved 36 percent, while Hillary had 14%. Obama was 3rd with 13%. WOW, what amazing star power!

The rest of the poll was as follows:

Tom Vilsack 9%

John Kerry 6%

Joe Biden 5%

This isn't a fluke. This is the second poll which has shown Edwards in the lead. In a poll taken in the middle of 2006, Edwards had a 4 point lead over Hillary.

After a few months of looking over other candidates, I have decided to stick with Edwards as my candidate. The only thing that would make me change my mind is if Gore entered the race. And still, I might stick with Edwards.

But Obama and all his 'star power' isn't transforming into votes. How people talk, I would assume that Obama would have 70% of the Democratic primary votes! How come we never hear that he is constantly in double digit deficits in all of the polls conducted? He is never ahead, and he is never near the front. So why the hype? Again, beats the hell out of me. Maybe people are seeing what he really is, and that is all talk and no action.

Still, if you want to get on the winning team, join us with John Edwards!

Obama losing support.

Many of us have talked about polls and how 'Hillary is at 31% and Obama is at 19%'. We can all agree, that is a 12 point gap.

This is the poll that we always hear about.

But that poll was taken on Election Day.

Now, lets look at the polls since that one was taken:

Pew Research 11/9-11/12- Hillary 39, Obama 23 - 16 point gap.

WNBC/Marist Poll 11/27-12/3 - Hillary 33, Edwards 14, Gore 13, Obama 12. Oh my god, the almighty Obama is 4th!

Opinion Dynamics Poll - 12/5-12/6 - Hillary 33, Obama 12

CNN Poll 12/05-12/7 - Hillary 37, Obama 15



Alright, my point. If Obama is the 'high and mightly' that can 'easily be elected', why the hell is he doing so poorly in the Democratic primarie polls? So, if only, lets say, 17% of Democrats support him, and I am sure that half of that number of Republicans support him, only about 10% of people think he ready to be President. So why all this hype.

It is all the media, and YOU, my friends, are being lead like sheep!

Yes, I have changed my view on Obama.

Hello everyone!

Ok, after the number of attacks on Obama, I have 'kind of' changed my mind about him.

A few months ago, I really opposed Obama because, I thought, he voted for the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. I heard, somewhere, that he had voted for it.

But, after someone mentioned that they thought he didn't vote for this bill, but instead voted against it, I had to do some investigation.

And, sure as hell, he DID vote against the bill.

Damn, I feel like a jamoke!

And, honestly, his vote on this has totally changed my mind about Mr. Obama. I really disliked the man because of this. But now I don't.

Still, do I support him for President? No. I still think he hasn't proven himself and it takes more than just speeches.

Therefore, I have no problems with Mr. Obama. If he is the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008, I will support him 100%. But, I am still supporting Edwards as of right now.

But, Nate, I don't have a problem with him anymore, happy? :)

Popular vs. Powerful - Bobby the Messiah

In the last few weeks, everyone is talking about Obama. Obama, Obama, Obama. Blah blah blah!

I will admit, the man is popular. He is a person that the press clings to. Why? I still have no friggen clue, but they do. Oh yeah, I forgot, they told us that he was going to have a good speech before they even heard or read it. They think Democrats are sheep, and I honestly think we are!

But this past weekend I went to the movies and watched the movie "Bobby". Just a litte note on the movie though; if you think it is about Bobby, you are wrong. About 10% of it deals with Bobby Kennedy. I left very disappointed.

Still, watching the movie made me realize something.

Well, there is a difference between being a popular politician and, what I would consider a powerful politician.

In our lifetime, or many lifetimes before ours, there have been extremely few politicians that I would consider powerful.

And watching the movie Bobby, I realized the difference.

Barack Obama, along with Bill Clinton and, yes, John F. Kennedy, were popular. People liked to see them, they liked to see them speak. They liked to be in their presence so that they could say "I met so-and-so".

But in the case of Robert Francis Kennedy, the man was powerful. Did he become a powerful politican because of the death of his brother? Maybe. But still, he was a powerful man.

It all started with the Democratic National Convention in 1964. When Bobby came to speak, the crowd stood and applauded him for 22 minutes.

After 1964, Bobby went around the nation as the new Senator from New York and saw how the people of the nation lived and wanted to know their problems. And, unlike so many politican, who act like they care about someone, but appear to be phony (Bill Clinton), one could tell that Bobby Kennedy really cared about the people of this country.

There is one clip of Bobby Kennedy that I remember really well. I don't remember when it happened or where it took place. But in the clip, Bobby walks up to a poor black child that lived in a shack and asked him "what did you have for lunch today?" The boy responded "we haven't eaten yet." Kennedy responed "you haven't had any lunch yet?" The kid simply shaked his head no. Kennedy, not knowing what to say, patted the child on the head. You could tell in his heart that he really cared about the child and didn't have a 'ready made' political soundbite.

But this is just one story of Bobby Kennedy. When Bobby ran for President, he cared for everyone. He cared about that black child, he cared about the elderly, and the 19-year old that was to be shipped off to Vietnam. The man didn't run to 'be President', like so many in our nation have (including the three I have mentioned previously, but we still don't know about Obama). He ran to help people and to help their lives.

So, what made him a powerful politician? Well, lets look at the others that I have mentioned.

In the case of Clinton, Obama and JFK, people wanted to shake their hands and meet them so that they could say they met the man. Were they inspiring? Not really. People liked their policies or didn't like the opponent. Remember, JKF won in a really close election. And I highly doubt that Clinton's 'forgotten middle class tax cut' was and inspirational moment. With Obama, I still haven't found a damn thing about him that is inspirational.

Now lets look at Bobby Kennedy. He always had the look of sadness on his face, like he was powerless in helping his fellow Americans. He had a look that I could imagine Abraham Lincoln having while delivering the Gettysburg Address. Still, people flocked to RFK. People wanted to meet him as well.

Hundreds, even thousands, ran behind his motorcade in the 1968 election to meet the man. But they didn't just meet him to 'meet him'. They saw him as more. When you look at the people in these old clips, and you see them shake his hand, they look more like they are in the presence of the Messiah instead of a 60's politician. People felt hope with him. They felt that the world would change. Even those of who couldn't reach his hand to shake were still in awe over him.

And on June 4th, 1968, when RFK was shot, it seemed that the hopes and dreams of all Americans were dashed. Yes, people were upset when JFK was shot. But there was a certain feeling with RFK died. It changed the nation.

Bobby Kennedy was a powerful man. The last person that might of had this power was Abraham Lincoln. Only once in century do we have a man or woman who shows this power.

Who will be next? It sure isn't Obama!

NObama in 2008!

Well, I am going to start off on this again, but I feel I need to.

In the last few weeks, everyone has been talking about the 'do-nothing' senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.

Everyone wants him to be President. Why? Well, it really beats the hell out of them. Yes, not out of me, but out of them! Most people have no clue why they want him to be President, yet they support him.

Oh yeah, I forgot, a speech. He gave a great speech. That is why he sould be elected. But if you ask any German in the 1930s, they thought Adolf Hitler was a great speaker as well.

Now before you go off and start saying what I KNOW you are going to say, I am not saying that Barack Obama is Adolf Hitler. I am just saying that people who are good speakers are not always good leaders.

Yes, it takes more than words to be a good President.

I think that it is great to see the anti-Obama movements starting to spread around the net. "NObama" mania is starting to take the spotlight.

Do I think Obama could be a good President? I have no friggen idea. I like to see what a guy has done before I vote for him. As Nick Nolte said in the movie 48 Hours "I belive in the Merrit System, and you haven't built up any points."

There are a lot of candidates out there that are electable, like John Edwards, Evan Bayh, Tom Vilsack and others. Yet everyone thinks that Obama is the man! Why?

Besides the fact that he has only been a Senator for a little less than two years, he has never held executive office. True, neither has John Edwards, but the other two I have mentioned have.

Oh, and lets look at this one as well:

On November 1st, 2006 the Chicago Tribune reported that Obama's home in the South Side neighborhood of Chicago was purchased the same day as an adjoining vacant lot owned by the wife of Antoin Rezko an Illinois businessman charged with political influenced peddling and a past contributor to Obama's election campaigns (Wikipedia).

Interesting.....

But, of course, since everyone is talking about him, he must be a big shot in Washington, right? Well, no!

As far as ranking on the committees, Obama is dead last among Democrats on the Foreign Relations and Environment and Public Works Committees. Oh wait, he is second to last on the Veterans Affairs Committee. So, I guess he is moving up.

So, why the hype? One speech. Big deal.

Though I do think there is something deeper.

I feel that a lot of white voters are supporting Obama because he is "more like a white guy than a black guy." They don't want to look racist, yet I feel that the reason many are supporting him is quite racist itself. Basically, he is "a black guy I can live with." Why didn't any of these people support Carol Mosley Brawn (a Democratic Senator from Illinois that, to many voters, made a lot of sense and had 'great speeches', and is, i'm sure, very close to Obama on the issues)? If Mosley-Braun made the "Blue State-Red State" speech, we would have forgotten about it a week later.

Hopefully this Obama hype will start to die down. I think that people are support this guy for ALL the WRONG reasons! They don't really have any good reasons to support him. What has he done in his two years in the Senate that you like? What votes did he cast that you supported? What makes him different from the other Democrats on the issues?

If Obama gets the nomination, I will vote for him, but reluctantly. Maybe I just won't vote.

I know I am not on the popular end of this argument, but please, sit down with your thoughts for an hour or two and really ask yourself "why do I support this guy?"

Oh, and in 2008, he won't be running against Alan Keyes either!

We say that Hillary doesn't stand for anything. At least she tried to pass a universal health care plan under President Clinton.

What has Obama done?

Can the Republicans steal the alternative fuel issue?

I was driving down from Chicago to my parent's place in Southern Illinois the other day. 100 miles outside of Chicago, I was surrounded by corn. 150 miles out, corn. 200 miles out, yup, corn. All the way down to Effingham, all I saw was corn! Corn corn corn!

And, as I am sure all of you know, Ethanol fuel is starting to become one of the top issues in political campaigns.

In fact, here in Illinois, I heard three candidates use the ethanol issue in their commercials. They all talked about how we need to turn to ethanol and stop depending on foreign oil.

I totally agree with these commercials.

Yet, all three of these commercials were run by Republican candidates (Kirk, Biggert, Whitfield in KY). I never heard one run by a Democratic candidate.

This is an issue that the Democrats can get behind, yet, they aren't really talking about it. The 'Ethanol Issue' could really help the Democrats in two ways, one in regards to policy, and the other in regards to politics.

The policy argument:

I have heard people say that ethanol doesn't burn as clean as most boast. Ok, that is fine with me. It sucks, but I can deal with it.

I also heard people say that ethanol is only $.20 cheaper than the current fuel at places that offer the E85. That is true as well. Why is that true though? Because there isn't a high demand for the E85, because there aren't that many cars that run on it. As more cars have the opportunity to run on this fuel, hopefull, the price of E85 will reduce.

So with those two factors in place, there is really not a lot of difference between ethanol and our current fuel. Right? WRONG!

Unlike our fuel that we currently use, this fuel will be produced mostly in the United States. 2/5ths of the worlds corn comes from the US. Therefore, 2/5ths of the ethanol fuel can come from the US as well. We would no longer be an importer, but an exporter. THIS MEANS AMERICAN JOBS!

Also, if ethanol becomes the fuel of choice, we will no longer spend any time or money in the Middle East. Let them solve their own problems. They will find out that their oil is useless and that they will need to come to us now.

The political argument:

This one is a pretty easy one.

Farmers have been Republicans. Farmers grow corn. Farmers want a candidate that can help them sell corn. Democrats strongly push ethanol. Farmers start voting Democrat. Democrats start winning in Nebraska, Kansas and other rural states. Simple!

Yet it is the Republicans running the adds for ethanol.

Democrats need to quit thinking that everyone that supports alternative fuel is a Democratic voter. If we just 'assume' this, we will lose the issue.

So Democrats, be smart. This issue will help us in many ways! Use this issue!!!!

Bush Opened Iraq Debate Wide Open

A few days ago, Dubya had his press conference. Some people said he looked bold. I, on the other hand, still think he looked like a total moron and complete idiot. Yeah, I always say Democrats shouldn't do name calling with Republicans, but Bush is the exception.

During his press conference, Bush flat out said, and I think it was for the first time, that there was no connection between Osama bin Laden and Iraq. Yep, no connection whatsoever. After years and years of telling us the opposite, Bush was put on the spot, and he couldn't handle it.

With this one word statement, Bush has completely opened the door on the Iraq debate. As soon as he made that statement, Chris Matthews asked Sen. Rick Santorum was there any connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. He couldn't answer the question, he was stumped.

The only answer that Santorum could give was..."And as you know, theres these Iraqi document dump thats going on that we have 48,000 cases of boxes full of documents from the Iraq regime, the former regime, and a lot of the documents are indicating there certainly was relationships between Iraqi intelligence and military officials and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda."

So, did you notice the key word in that statement? I did. He said Saddam was working with terrorist groups LIKE Al Qaeda. If Iraq was working with Al Qaeda, Santorum would have just said it. But he said groups LIKE Al Qaeda, which indicates to me that there is no connection whatsoever. This is going to be the key word that Republicans will use as far as the connection, so keep an eye out for it!

So for all of those that said there was a connection, well, don't you just feel stupid now.

Still, what upsets me is the Democratic response. Yep, NOTHING! I have not seen any of our leaders at all talking about this. This was a HUGE fumble, and no response.

I guess the Democratic Party needs to have a better quick response team. Or hell, just a response team in general!

Whenever the Democrats mess up, the GOP pounces on it. We, on the other hand, just sit there with our fingers up our asses and do nothing. Sorry about the language, but I am just getting more and more angry at Democrats being whimps as I write this blog post! Maybe I should stop!

Still, Bush said there is no connection. Since our politicians and party leaders aren't going to take advantage of this mistake, I guess it is up to us again. Use Bush's quote, and use it well. Make sure you let your Republican friends know that Bush said, in front of the whole world, that there was no connection between Iraq and bin Laden.

Then ask "why did we go to war?"

There's the election!

Iraq is another Vietnam

I know my fair share about Vietnam. True, I wasn't there, but not only did I take a class at the University of Utah about Vietnam (and if any Utes are reading, take this class from Professor Gunn, he is great), I also did my senior thesis on the chemical warfare in Vietnam. Basically, I have done quite a bit of research on Vietnam.

And looking at the current war in Iraq, I see a lot of similarities between the two.

The first contradiction that Republicans will blurt out is 'well, in Vietnam, we lost over 50,000 troops. In Iraq we have only lost over 2,000.' Yes, this is true. And this seems to be the only stat that Republicans use to compare Vietnam and Iraq. Again, like most issues, they only look skin-deep and not look at the total argument.

But that is where the differences end.

In Vietnam, many said that the war was 'run by the politicians and not the generals'. People said that this was Johnson's and McNamara's war. I think it can easily be said that this is Bush's and Rummy's war. Hell, Bush said himself he was a war President. (note to self, don't elect any more Texans, they like war). Sorry to my Texas readers :)

Another similarity is that we have a strong insurgency, and it is only getting stronger. The Vietcong started off as a small group, but quickly grew. This is exactly what we are seeing in Iraq as well.

Similarity number three is that we do not understand the Iraqi people, just like we didn't understand the Vietnamese. In Vietnam, there was a general rule that applied to small villages that said "the government's laws stop at the village door." Of course, we didn't apply this rule to our fighting. We assumed that all small villages were supportive of the Vietcong (and many might have been). But still, we burned down the villages and killed their women and children. In Iraq, we see the same thing. We see that we didn't understand the Iraqis as well as we thought we would. The whole 'they would welcome us as liberators' idea didn't really hold water in hindsight.

All of this leads to point number four. We should have KNOWN we were in trouble when Rummy said "we need to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis." WHAT!?!?! That is right out of McNamara 101! The second we heard that, we should have known 'oh shit, this isn't going to be good.'

The final point that I am going to mention is the fighting styles of the two. In Vietnam, they believed in attrition. They knew that, if the wear their enemies down and slowly take the fight to them, that the public in the U.S. would turn against the war and the American soldier morale would decrease. They have been fighting like this for centuries, they never look for a quick knock-out. The Iraqis might be using this same tactic. The public is turning against the war, and we see our soldier's morale starting to decrease as well.

There are also a lot more similarities between the two wars. Insurgency being supported by other countries, supporting a government who is corrupt and more worried about money than the well being of their citizens, we can't tell the difference between enemy and friend, and so on.

But the Republicans would make you think that these two wars are totally different just by the amount of Americans killed. Don't let them fool you my friends, they are one in the same.

The Americans won most of the battles (they were victorious during Tet and other NVA and VC offensives), but the Vietnamese won the war.

Jesus: Democrat or Republican?

God, God, Jesus, Jesus, God, God, God, Jesus, God, Jesus and, uh, Jesus!

That is pretty much was the line of the Republican Party is nowadays. When you see a car with that "W" sticker, you usually see it next to the 'Jesusfish' or some kind of pro-life bumper sticker.

But, with the vast amount of issues that there are, I wonder what Jesus would be if he was in today's political arena...a Democrat or Republican?

Well, lets take a look...

When it comes to abortion, that is pretty easy. I am sure he would agree 100% with the Republicans.

But what about health care? Would Jesus support giving health care to all or making it so that only the very rich can get health care? Easy answer, +1 for the Democrats.

What about the environment? Would Jesus support cleaning up the environment, or just making sure we don't harm it in the first place? Or would Jesus support deregulation of most industries that would hurt the environment? I assume he would want to protect his Earth. Again, +1 for the Democrats.

Death penalty? Well, since he is pro-life, I would assume he would be opposed to the death penalty. One more point for the Democrats.

What about corporate greed? Would Jesus 'turn the other cheek' to the Ken Lays and other corporate scum that has squandered billions in retirement plans of their employees? I doubt it. Democrats, another point.

The war in Iraq. Well, it comes back to the whole pro-life stand, doesn't it? The Catholic Church has always opposed war unless the war would bring about less death that if the war didn't happen. And, in this case, the war is costing us a lot more in lives that it would if we never had it. Democrats, yep, plus one again!

Welfare? Would Jesus support having a record amount of homeless on the streets or helping those who do not have the means to help themselves? Again, easy answer. One more point for the Democrats.

Gay rights? Would Jesus punish gays or would Jesus welcome all (as Joel Osteen says)? I am sure he would welcome all of God's children. Again, another point for the Democrats.

Jews and Mormons? Well, Jew haven't accepted Jesus as their 'savior', so they are out. And Mormons, most Christians don't consider you Christians. So I guess you are out of the Republican Party as well.

So, lets see...Republicans score one point, Democrats score 7 points. Wow! So, according to my half-assed political scoring system, Jesus is 88% Democrat. And the Republicans claim him!!!!

Basically, it just seems that a lot of Christians nowadays feel that, in order to be a good Christian, you need to "be a registered Republican, drive an SUV and support the war in Iraq."

But as we see, Jesus would support a lot more views of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. It is time that we get this message out and let Christians know that the Republicans are the ones that oppose Jesus and God, not the Democrats.

The U.S. is Very Unsafe...make it an issue Dems!

On September 11th, we exposed a large security gap that we had in our airlines. Anybody could just jump on an airliner and take control of a plane and ram it into a building. We never assumed that a hijacking could happen in the United States, but it did. And that is how this administration thinks...that if it doesn't often, then we don't have to deal about it.

But since September 11th, we have done a lot to increase our security. Let me list the ways that the Republicans have made us safer:

1. Prevented toe-nail clippers on airplanes.
2. Created the TSA (half of whom look like they just came back from drug rehab).
3. Increased spying on citizens, many who don't have any connection to terrorism.
4. Gathered a number of phone records of average Americans, who, again, don't have any connection to terrorism.
5. Check our shoes at the airport.

Well, don't you feel safe now! I am glad that Bush's 'War on Terra' has made these important moves to make our country safe. Get real!

While some of the planes might be safer, what about everything else? We had train attacks in Madrid and London, yet we don't have any system in place to deal with attacks on trains. What about boats? Not just commuter boats, like in New York, but cruise liners. What about water supplies, what about nuclear power plants, what about suicide bombers entering shopping malls and busy business districts...and the list goes on.

Basically, Bush hasn't done anything to make us safe. We are just lucky that we haven't had an attack on the U.S. again. But they don't have any reason to attack just yet. They can take all the time they want.

This lack in security needs to be a focus point for Democrats. The Democrats are winning the debate on the war, but we need to start winning the debate on homeland security as well. Again, we need to use the Republican tactic, and scare people into voting for us.

Another issue for Democrats...9-11!

Since September 11th, 2001, I have heard Democrats constantly complain about the Republican's use of the events in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania. They say that Republicans just run on this issue and that they are creating a world of fear. Poll numbers show that Republicans are still trusted more when it comes to the war on terror than Democrats.

So what should Democrats do?

Well, use 9-11.

The Republicans have successfully said that if you don't vote for their party, that the world will basically end and that terrorists will attack the U.S. again. As you and I know that is totally hogwash.

But Democrats need to turn the tables on the debate. WE need to start scaring the people about terror. We need to start telling them how the Republican approach to terror is more hazardous to your health than the Democratic approach. We need to tell them that you will be safer under a Democratic administration than a Republican one.

And, yes, there is another thing that Democrats need to do, but very few will dare do it...

if Al Gore would have been President, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

I know that most of us have programmed ourselves to think that 9/11 would have happened no matter who was president at the time. That is what we say when we are with friends talking about 9/11. But most of us Democrats know, deep inside our brains and hearts, that the Gore Administration would have taken the threat a little more seriously.

Most of us know that Gore wouldn't have sat there for, what, eight minutes and read "My Pet Goat". He would have been out of there.

We also know that the Gore Administration would have taken the "bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States", memo a little more seriously, and not pass it off as 'vague' as Condi and Dubya did.

I recommend reading "Take it Back" by Paul Begala and James Carville. They really do a good job explaining this concept (you need to buy the print version, as they do not cover it on the audio book).

Basically, we need to not be afraid of using 9/11. We are talking about the security of our country, and the way the Republicans have run things have shown that we are far from secure. We need to make the Bush Administration look like the incompetent people that they are.

Therefore, we need to use 9/11. Lets tell the American people what the difference is between our war on terror and the Republican plan.

Lets also not be afraid to say that, if Gore were elected, that 9/11 might not have happened.

New Terror Level: Color Brown for Crap!

Well, it is great to see that our 'war on terror' (or as Bush calls it 'war on terra') was handed another victory today. Supposedly, UK and US officials, along with help from Pakistan, foiled (which seems to be the word of the day) a terror (terra) plot that would have targeted 6 to 20 flights to be bombed over the Atlantic Ocean.

I am glad that we 'foiled' the plot. Still, I am a person that wonders half of the time if these 'foiled' plots are real or just another PR stunt for Blair or Bush when their approval ratings drop. But this one seems to be real.

But the reason I am writing today is to bring attention to the color-coded terror levels. I guess we moved up to a yellowish-orange today, I have no friggen clue.

What cracks me up about these terror levels is that they always change the terror level AFTER something happens, and not before. After the anthrax deaths, they raised it. After 7/11, they raised it. And after this 'foiled' plot today, they raised it (on flights between the UK and US).

Maybe I was mislead. I assumed that these terror alert levels were created to 'warn' us about a possible terror (terra) attack. Instead, it seems they are just being used 'after' the fact.

Yeah, great warning system. That is kind of like the person who turns on their blinker after they are already in the turn lane, or saying 'fore' after someone already got knocked in the head with a golf ball, or yelling 'watch out' after someone is already hit by the bus. You catch the drift.

Basically, these color coded systems are 'reactionary'. They only change the color in reaction to what is happening in the world at that time. Oh, I forgot, they do it during major holidays as well. I understand, we have had so many terror attacks during national holidays. Any terror expert can tell you that the terrorists usually attack when the people and government don't expect it (like September 11th).

So, the main point of the article is...'what the hell is the use of the terror codes'? Are they there to tell me something bad already happend?

I think it was really created to as a coloring book for Dubya, so he could understand the terra threats better.

War, Lamont Campaign...democratic 'model' for success?

Not all Democrats are die-hard liberals. I am pretty liberal, but still have my conservative values. And watching Ned Lamont surrounded by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton worries me. I feel that associating yourself with these figures isn't the greatest way to win a general election.

Still, Ned Lamont won the Democratic nomination last night, and used the war to do it.

I have been saying for a while that the Democrats need to do a number of things. One of those things is to get the base out. And that is exactly what Ned Lamont did last night.

While I don't think the war is the general election issue that Democrats need to win independents and moderates, it sure is the issue that will drive die hard Democrats to the polls.

In 2004, Karl Rove knew that a number of right-wing Christians stayed home in 2000. In order for Bush to win in 2004, he needed those people to turn out and vote. They did...and he won.

Many Democrats feel that candidates have to capture the center in order to win. This is apparent in the elections of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. But still, there needs to be polarizing issue that will turn out the base. The war, I feel now, is the best issue. And if we can get the base to turn out and vote Democratic (not Green or whateve), we don't have to sell out to the right anymore.

Ned Lamont was the second high profile candidate to use the war as their main issue. The first was Paul Hackett, and he almost won. And, or course, Ned Lamont did win.

I criticized using the war as the Democratic issue...but I think I might be wrong. So far, the track record looks pretty good.

Now it is time to support Lamont

In 1960, Harry Truman wasn't a fan of John Kennedy. He openly questioned 'if he was ready for the country or if the country was ready for him'.

Then Kennedy won the nomination. In a joint press conference, a reporter asked Truman 'when' he thought that Kennedy was ready for the nomination. Truman answered 'when the Democratic Party nominated him for President. That is the law of the Democratic Party. And I am a Democrat and I follow the law."

In last night's primary, Ned Lamont narrowly defeated Joe Lieberman. Many Democrats rejoyced...others are not so happy.

I supported Lieberman in the primary, and I stated my reasons why in an earlier post. But after last night, I really question my decision.

I am a Democrat and I support the Democratic candidate. Ned Lamont is the candidate for the Democratic Party for this race, and, therefore, I support him for the general election.

But Lieberman's decision to run as an independent shows one of two things. First, he has no party loyality. After he had the honor of being the nominee for the Democratic Party for President in 2000, this is a, well, shitty way to pay back your party.

The second thing his switch shows is that he is only worried about staying in power. It isn't about the will of the people, it is about how long Lieberman can stay a U.S. Senator, pure and simple.

But in any election, we need to just face the fact that one candidate wins and others lose. If Lieberman wanted to show any credibility, he should have ran as an independent from the start.

Still, I am now supporting Lamont in the general election, as most D.C. Democrats are doing.

Even though I like Gore and would love to see him as President, I think that the Lamont people could recycle the "Sore Loserman" signs from 2000 for this election.

Lieberman Wins tonight.

Well, I am just going to make a quick and bold prediction that Joe Lieberman will win by 6 points tonight over Ned Lamont. Lets see how close I was in a few hours.

Democrats: 2002...no message. 2004...no message. 2006...no message!

Well, it's that time again. Elections are just around the corner. And like we have seen in the last few elections, the Democrats do not have a sound message.

In 2002, the Democrat message was "vote Democrat because we aren't Republicans." In 2004, it was the "vote for anyone but Bush." Now, in 2006, it seems that we again about going back to "vote Democrat because we aren't Republicans" message. Well, it hasn't worked in the past, and it will not work in the future.

The Democrats still have not given voters a reason why to vote for them. There are many issues that we can use that will swing voters to our side, most of them economic. We need to make people understand that economic decisions made by Congress and the Administration directly impact their family, unlike gay marriage.

Still, it seems that the Democrats are just on a anti-Republican rant. And when rant, we lose. We look like the whinny liberals that the Republican accuse us of being.

A perfect example of this is the Ned Lamont campaign. What is Lamont's campaign focusing on? Well, it is the "don't vote for Lieberman because he is like Bush." Basically, it is the "vote for me because I am not a Republican" approach. Yes, it might help him win the primary tomorrow, but will it help him win the general. Democrats ALWAYS forget that, in order to win an election in close states and seat, you need to win Republican and Independent support.

But the Democrats need to start creating a message now for the elections that are coming up. One of the posters on my Myspace blog said that we 'need to run on our own merits as well as the GOP foibles'. Exactly, but it just isn't happening. Ask the average voter what the Democrats stand for, and they either have no answer or they say 'they support welfare', the answer that is outdated by nearly 20 years.

I do think that the Democrats will retake the House or the Senate in the upcoming election, but we can make strides. Still, if we don't come up with a message, Election Day might end before it even begins.

I know I keep pounding this point, but I am just damn tired of losing. Aren't you?

Pro-Democrats vs. Bush-haters

Yes, life is, well, alright if you are a Democrat right now. If you are like me, you are looking forward to the upcoming election. George Bush has a horrible approval rating and that should work to our advantage. But if you are a pessimistic Democrat like myself, you know that the Democrats will figure out some way to f-up the election between now and November.

Ok, Back to George Bush. People really dislike this guy. They don't want to see him in power any longer. Hell, I haven't seen an impeachment poll taken lately, but I am sure there would be a majority of people for impeachment. Basically, the point is that people dislike George Bush.

But are these people supporting the Democrats? Yeah, they do not like DUHbya at all, but they are 100% fired up to vote for the Democratic candidate as well. Many people think that the Democratic candidate is just as bad as the Republican candidate, which in some cases might be true.

But the Democratic Party needs to identify those who are 'anti-Bush' but not necessarily 'pro-Democrat' and convince them to join our side. This is how we build a base.

The Republicans have a strong base. I am sure you are like me, when you see a W bumper sticker and think 'what a moron'. It happens to me every time. But they are loyal and they stick by their candidate no matter that happens (which sometimes is a bad thing, like right now).

On the other hand, I am the only one that proudly displays my "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Gore" bumper sticker. That is the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Still, back to the point of this article. Just because someone is anti-war or anti-Bush doesn't mean they are pro-Democrat. The Democrats need to work to get these people on board. Many of these people are probably former Republicans that are mad at years of failed spending policies under Reagan and Bush I and II. This is an issue that the Democrats need to exploit. Why we haven't, I really don't know. Remember, Ross Perot ran off of the deficit, and received 19% of the vote. Those voters are a big chunk.

The Democratic base is weak. The war is what we need to build up the base. But we need to also have more issues. What happens when a Democrat is elected and the war is over? What issue will we have for those anti-Bush, anti-War people to stay with the Democratic Party?

We need to figure that out quickly.

Lamont ahead in latest poll.

Though I am supporting Lieberman in the upcoming senate primary, Ned Lamont has taken a huge lead in the latest poll. Lamont is now ahead 54% to 41% for Lieberman.

I wrote a post about why I was supporting Lieberman. But still, Lamont being elected might not be a bad thing.

Why? Well, first, the Lamont campaign could be an example, and a tool, on how to turn out our liberal base. The problem Democrats have is that they can never get their base out, or the base votes for someone else. Lamont has been able to mobilize them, yet we don't know if they will vote until election day. Remember, that is how Bush won, by turning out his base.

And second, maybe Lamont is helping people change their view about the war. Again, in another post, I said that people trust the Repubicans more on the war and the so-called 'war on terror' than Democrats. I still stick by that statement. But while I think the Democrats cannot take over the issue, Republicans can certainly lose it. And I think that Lamont is starting to expose that weakness. I think that the 'lesser of two evils' plays into effect in this primary.

But Lamont seems to be a new candidate as well. Since the debate, where I think Lamont looked like a bug-eyed crazy liberal, he has seemed to tone down his 'crazy look' quite a bit. He needs to remember, the primary isn't the only race, you still have to win a general.

But if Lamont wins, the Democrats have found an issue to bring out the base. We have seen what happens when Republicans turn out their base. Now we can do that as well with the issue of the war. I don't think the war will change the average voters view of the Democratic Party, but it sure can keep the ultra-liberals from voting for Nader (which is why we have President Bush in the first place).

Democrats doomed in Florida, for 2006 that is!

The latest Orlando Sentinel polls came out in yesterday's paper, and it spells doom for Florida Democrats.

In the race for governor, both Democratic candidates, Jim Davis and Rod Smith, have very low name identification. In this Mason/Dixon - Orlando Sentinel poll, 46% of the sample didn't recognized Jim Davis' name. As far as State Senator Rod Smith, a whopping 70% had never heard of Rod Smith. And, honestly, I think those numbers are higher.

When asked who Democratic voters would vote for in the Democratic primary for governor, 52% of the voters, a majority, didn't know who they were going to vote for. Again, people have never heard of these candidates. So, therefore, I think we can see a record low turnout for the upcoming primary.

But these numbers just expose an overall problem for the Democratic Party. The Democrats have done a poor job recruiting candidates. If they do recruit a candidate, they just find a person, usually a lawyer, and run them. This is the case in many of their races around the state. They just assume that if you are an attorney then you are a qualified candidate.

On the other hand, Republicans have been looking at the whole picture. They look at all occupations. Yes, they even look at lawyers (Tom Feeney is a lawyer). But they also look at overall standing in the community. They want to see if these candidates have a connection to the people that would eventually elect them. They also look at other aspects, like church and club connections.

The Florida Democratic Party needs to realize that recruiting candidates isn't a few-month process. Many of the candidates that are running on the Democratic side have been recruited just a few months prior to the election. Whereas many Republican candidates have been running for a year or more.

What do Democrats need to do? They need to do is to 'create' candidates. What do I mean by this? Well, Democrats should recruit candidates in 2005 to run for state house, senate, or whatever for the 2008 campaign year, not 2006. This gives candidates time to raise money, created local ties, know key lobbyist, and know their voters over a longer period of time.

So, why is this good? One, more money can be raised. It is easier to raise money over a three year period than a few month period. Second, and the most important, a candidate can grow as a leader in the community and understand the needs of the voters. And three, it is a lot stressful to try to make contacts, attend events, raise money and so-on in a few months than over the course of a few years. Basically, start early, get money early, know people early, know issues early, know voters early, less stress later. This is a game plan Democrats need to do.

But too much recruiting is done at the last minute. Yes, this might work for Orrin Hatch in Utah, but it doesn't happen here. And with term limits, and the lack of creating leaders in the Legislature, it is important to create leaders at the local level.

Hopefully Democrats will embrace this tactic. But I feel that Democrats want 'results now' instead of waiting.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither was the Republican majority. Our comeback won't be built in a day either.

The Confederate Flag is Offensive!

I haven't posted anything in the blog the last week. Sorry guys. I had to go to Illinois for a few days and take care of some business. I'll get back to posting regularly again.

While I was driving back from Illinois, with my new "Land of Lincoln" license plate, I noticed a large amount of confederate flags. The further south I went, the more I noticed.

At one stop on the way back, there was this one girl with shirt with a confederate flag on the back. Under the flag read the quote "If this offends you, you need a history lesson." I looked at her and said "If you find this offensive, you need a history lesson? Well, I find it offensive."

And, like clockwork, she said "well, you need a history lesson."

Of course she didn't know my background. I am a history major that not only took a Civil War course at the University of Utah, but have also independently studied the Civil War for the past ten years.

So, I asked her "who was the Vice President of the Confederacy"? Guess what...no answer. Well, no surprise there. I told her it was Alexander Stephens, and that she should maybe take a history lesson herself.

Simply, the Confederate flag is offensive. It represents slavery. Supporters say it represents states' rights. Well, if that is the case, why don't they fly the Alabama, Mississippi or North Carolina flag? If you are for states' rights, then fly your state's flag.

Really, it isn't about states' rights or southern pride. It is about racism. How many of these people who proudly wave the CSA flag have friends that are black? I doubt very few.

But I think we really need to put this debate into perspective. Lets say you were traveling southern Germany. You see a house that has a Nazi flag hanging on the front porch. When you see that flag, what do you think? Do you think...'hey, this guy hates Jews', or...'oh, that guy supports German heritage'? Pretty easy answer.

The basic point is that the Confederate flag is a racist symbol. The Confederacy was born from idea of slavery. It wasn't about states' rights. At that time in history, most states ran their affairs themselves, and there was very little federal government. Shelby Foote said before the Civil War, people would refer to the U.S. as "The United States are", meaning a collection of states. After the Civil War, people would refer to the U.S. as "The United States is", meaning a collective whole. That shows that before the Civil War states' rights were alive and well.

The Confederacy basically is a sign of racism.

If someone can convince me otherwise, I'm all ears!

Another Reason to Love France

Well, the World Cup is over. My favorite team, the French side, almost won their second World Cup in eight years. They were close, but couldn't win. Zidane's head butt didn't help.

Anyway, people always ask me "why do you like France." Many Americans hate France, yet they know nothing about them. They say French people are arrogant. Most of the people that I have talked to have never even visited France. Therefore, how do they know they are arrogant? And this is being said by citizens of the most arrogant country in the world, the United States.

Still, why am I such a big French supporter? Easily, because they support their citizens. Health care for their citizens is free. Education for their citizens is free. Their infrastructure (roads, trains, other modes of transportation) are superior to ours.

First well talk about health care. First of all, it is free. Second of all, it was rated the best health care system in the world by the World Health Organization. Guess where the United States was? Yep, 37th. But we did rank 1st in one of their ranking. We were the most expensive system in the world.

Second, education is free in France (last time I looked). All children in France are encouraged to attend university. Whereas in the United States, tuition rates are increasing more and more that only the rich will attend our schools. In fact (again, last time I looked), it was cheaper for an American to go to university in France than it is to go to a public university in their own state.

Third is their transportation system. Here, everything is the car. There, you have the trains that take you around the country at over 300 MPH. Not only is this train systems (know of the TGV) technologically superior to our train system, but Americans actively work to defeat bullet train projects. Also their ferry system between other European nations is brilliant.

But now we have a fourth reason to say that France is better than the United States. With the recent violence in Lebanon, the French government has sent a number of boats to evacuate their citizens wishing to leave. In fact, the French have evacuated most of their citizens. This evacuation system, like their health care, is free.

Now lets look at our country. We still don't have a clear evacuation plan. We finally have one ship to escort other ships in the region to evacuate Americans. And those Americans wishing to leave will be billed for their evacuation.

WHAT?!?!?!?

Yes, those Americans that want to leave the violence in this region are being charged by the United States' government to do so. Honestly, I am still speechless!

See, I look at it this way. In France, their government works to improve the life of their citizens. Here in the United States, you get the best life that money can buy.

That is why I love France.

P.S. - Paris isn't a dirty city either. It is actually one of the cleanest cities I have visited.

P.S. #2 - Oh, the French were right about Iraq and WMDs as well. Don't be mad because they were right and we were wrong.

Make Iraq the issue? Be careful of what you wish for!

Recently, I have been hearing many liberals say 'make the war in Iraq our main issue'. Yes, the war has been a very unpopular thing for Bush. Yes, Bush's handling of the war is hitting lows in recent polls. Yes, it is an issue that most Democrats agree on.

But is this the 'end all' answer to our political problems? Far from it. While many Americans disapprove of the way Bush has handled Iraq, they don't trust the Democrats on this issue either. Lets face it, since LBJ in Vietnam, the hostage crisis in Iran in 1979, and, I hate to say, the successes of Reagan foreign policy decisions, the American public have not really warmed up to the Democratic viewpoin on foreign affairs.

Just look at Howard Dean. If the war in Iraq was the main issue, and people oppose the war in Iraq, don't you think Howard Dean would have been President, or at least leading in some of the polls right now? But he isn't. Dean is a great guy, don't get me wrong, but I support him more because of his social issues, not foreign policy.

The Democrats have a foreign policy gap and they can't deny it. In a recent CNN poll, 48% of people trust Democrats to deal with the Iraq situation. Forty percent support the Republicans. That isn't that great of a gap.

When talking about the 'War on Terror', the gap is reversed. The American public still favor the Republicans over the Democrats 45% to 41%. And the Republicans have done a good job of blending the two. Still, it is amazing how many Americans can't tell the difference between the two.

Now, on the other had, the American public support the Democrats over the Republicans over the economy 53% to 38%, a 15% gap. Isn't this the issue that we should be targeting? With more jobs going overseas, more people losing their health insurance and more Americans getting paid less for more hours worked, the Democrats could make this the election year issue.

I honestly think that our issue is the minimum wage. How can anyone be AGAINST the minimum wage. Yet, the Republicans are! This should be the issue that we target in 2006 and 2008.

The war isn't the 'end all' issue. In fact, I feel the more that we pay attention to the war, the better the Republicans do.

Again, it's the economy, stupid.

I have to stick with Lieberman.

I was watching Connecticut's U.S. Senate debate last night. I wasn't able to see it live, thank god for DVRs! I settled into my seat waiting to see that traitor Lieberman get his clock cleaned by the surging Ned Lamont.

Boy was I wrong.

After watching the hour long debate, I would have to say that, if I was a voter in Connecticut, I would have to support Lieberman or not vote at all.

True, Lieberman voted for the war, and the fact that he sticks with it still bothers me. But he is still a democrat. During the debate, Lieberman constantly quoted the fact that he voted with his democratic senators 90% of the time. He supports universal health care (to me the most important issue), and many other liberal issues. Yes, he is conservative on other issues as well, but over all he is a Democrat.

On the other hand, I wasn't impressed with Lamont at all. He seemed like one of those 'high on caffeine' ultra-liberals that speak at 1000 MPH and is constantly talking down to people. Basically, he looks like (and is) one of those raging liberals that have put our party so far behind.

Also, Lamont is a one-issue candidate. He opposes the war....ok....and?? That was all. Most of the other issues (health care, immigration, etc...) they see eye to eye. Lamont tried to make it look like there was a difference, but there really wasn't. The only other exception was tax cuts. But still, Lamont didn't give any vision about what he would do as a U.S. Senator. His campaign seems to be based on the 'vote for me because I'm not Lieberman' approach. It didn't work for Kerry, and it won't work for Lamont.

But Lieberman's threat to leave the party if he loses is just wrong. Don't be a sore loser. If you lose, you lose, and you move on. But Lieberman knows he can win as an independent. Lowell Weicker did 1990.

Still, with all that is said and done, Lamont isn't impressive. I would love to vote against Lieberman if I could. I just wouldn't vote for Lamont as the alternative. Honestly, Lamont scares me. Maybe it is the eyes, I don't know. And if he scares me, a democrat, how will he appeal to the average voter.

Yes, Lieberman isn't exactly on the popular side of the Democratic Party, but he is far from being Zell Miller!

Pander to the Christian Coalition? Answer: No!

In 1988, Pat Robertson ran for President of the United State. Yeah, I know it is a scary thought. But Robertson was a serious contender for the Republican nomination. He finished second in the Iowa caucuses. But after that his campaign failed.

Many Democrats were happy to say adios to Robertson. But what many of us didn't know was that this was just the beginning of one of the largest political movements since the Civil Rights movement.

Robertson, along with Ralph Reed, took Robertson's mailing list and created the Christian Coalition. Since the late 1980s, the Christian Coalition has been in pain in many Democratic asses.

In recent debates, many Democrats have been asking if our party should include people who support many of the Christian Coalition's values. The simple answer is yes (I know my title says no, but I am getting to that). I feel that the Democratic Party needs to be the big tent party and needs to make everyone feel welcome. Though the likelihood of someone who is very conservative even entering our party is pretty slim. Still, we need to make all sane people (yes, sane people, we should never allow Nazis, Klansmen, etc) feel welcomed our party.

But should we pander to the Christian Coalition as an organization. The answer is no. First of all, the Christian Coalition was created by Pat Robertson, a REPUBLICAN, and Ralph Reed, another REPUBLICAN. This group is purely a Republican organization, no matter how non-partisan they want to look (and that is mostly for tax reasons). The Christian Coalition is about as independent as Bill O'Reilly claims to be.

Second, the Democrats shouldn't pander to the CC because they will never agree 100% with them. Lets say the Democrats have a candidate running for office. Yes, he might be pro-life and against gay marriage. But will that same candidate be opposed to stem cell, support prayer in school, the posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, public vouchers for private schools, and the score of other CC issues? The answer is likely no.

On the other hand, the likelihood of a Republican supporting 100% of their issues is pretty high. Therefore, they will support the Republican candidate.

Democrats (like Hillary, argh) shouldn't be wasting her time with these voters, because they will eventually disagree with some of their views and, therefore, support the Republicans.

The Christian Coalition IS a Republcian organization, and don't forget that. Too try to get the support of this group is just plain dumb.

Draft Lance!

It started with Ronald Reagan in the 1960s. Since then, celeberties have been a cornerstone in American politics.

But recently, more attention has been given to candidates who were former sports heros and coaches. Steve Largent, Tom Osborne, J.C. Watts and now Lynn Swann are just a few of the candidates that the Republicans have recruited.

And what do all of these candidates have in common? They have all won (or in Swann's case, in the process of winning) their campaigns.

For the last few years now, I have always said that elections are more popularity contests instead of a debate on the issues which is, yes, sad. There is more of a likelihood that someone will vote for someone who caught a pigskin for a living instead of a civil rights lawyer who actually knows the laws. This is the next generation of campaigning, and the Democrats are getting their asses handed to them.

I was watching the Daily Show the other day and saw Lance Armstrong talking to John Stewart. Armstrong was a well spoken man with a stong leadership quality. That is what people look for in candidates today, is leadership. If you look at CNN, MSNBC or the dreaded FoxNews Network, the poll they look at most, besides approval ratings, is the poll dealing with leadership. Issue polls (and how the candidates handle issues) is almost an afterthought.

Still, back to Lance Armstrong. Here is a guy that could win as a Republican in Harlem or a Democrat in Provo. He is a person everyone loves. Even before his stories about his problems with cancer became public, Lance was considered a strong leader. That is what the Democrats need.

They have started in the right direction. Heath Schuler, former University of Tennessee quarterback, is running for Congress in North Carolina. He has a great shot of winning his election and taking a seat away from the Republicans.

But the Democrats need to start tapping the athlete pool. More people watch the NFL, MLB, NBA, NASCAR and other sporting events than they do election day. Doesn't this tell us something?

And, sure, many of these candidates don't know anything about politics. The Republicans have done a great job of 'get elected first, learn politics later' approach to their elections, and it is working.

If the Democrats want to move ahead in the election race with the Republicans, they need to start recruiting sports stars as candidates.

My final thought will put it in perspective...Dale Earnhardt Jr. is said to be a Democrat...could you see Dale Jr losing any statewide race in North Carolina? I think not!

It is high school class president all over again. The football captain will ALWAYS defeat the Chess Club president.

Put conservatives in a bad light!

During the 1980s, all we heard was the word 'liberal'. Liberal was the big, bad word that the Republicans used to describe Democrats. This term was really useful during the 1984 and 1988 Presidential elections. Yep, it worked. Michael Dukakis had a large lead in the polls...but when Bush just kept hammering away with the word liberal, liberal, liberal...Bush headed to victory.

During the 1988 election, Bush's people successfully connected issues like the death penalty to the term liberal. Same in 1984 with Ronald Reagan with taxes and welfare. Hell, if you ask a republican today why they are a conservative, the answer is usually 1. they oppose welfare (though they don't realize that it was Clinton that passed welfare reform), 2. they support the death penalty (which, sadly, many democrats do as well) and 3. they support lower taxes (and they don't care one lick about spending).

Therefore, the republicans have turned liberal into a 'bad word'. The liberals even know this. That is why they no longer use the term liberal themselves. They call themselves 'progressives'. To me, the liberals are playing into the conservatives hands.

Liberals need to have to have pride in being liberals! They also need to figure out a way to bad mouth conservatives the same way the republicans bad mouthed liberals in the 1980s.

First, liberals need to be proud to be liberal. They shouldn't use the word 'progressive'. Hell, the first time I heard 'progressive', I thought that it was a moderate movement. I was thinking of the days of Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Boy was I wrong.

Still, liberals need to tell people what liberals do, or have done in the past. I don't have the quote with me right now, but Matt Santons (Democratic candidate on West Wing) during the live debate talked about how liberals gave blacks the right to vote, ended slavery, created Medicare and Social Secuity, etc... If someone can find me that quote that would be great. Still, Santos explained what liberals did and why he was proud to be a liberal. That is the first thing liberals have to do...be PROUD to be LIBERAL, not progressives!

The other thing that liberals need to do it to make conservative a bad word. I don't think that the liberals can turn the word 'conservative' itself into a bad word. I think they need to connect it to another word (actually a prefix), and that is neo-! If liberals talk about where 'neo-conservatives' stand on the issues (and there are a lot of issues we can use), then the effect will work just like 'liberal' did in the 1980s.

Also, I don't know if it is just me, but when I hear the prefix neo, I automatically think 'neo-nazi'. Therefore, if liberals continue to use 'neo', people might indirectly relate conservatives to Nazis. Is that fair, not really. But hell, when have the republicans been fair about anything?

It is time for liberals to stop playing 'fair' and to actually fight.

LATEST IOWA POLL!!

GREAT NEWS MY FRIENDS!! John Edwards is leading in the most recent Iowa Poll!! Here are the numbers:

John Edwards 30%
Hillary Clinton 26%
John Kerry 12%
Tom Vilsack 10%
Daschle, Warner, Feingold 3% each
Bayh and Wesley Clakr 2% each

The Hillary bandwagon is starting to lose the wheels! We need to work to WIN the next election. Lets get Edwards the nomination!

Sunday Shows: Dean's Back, Pelosi Sinks!

Thank god!

Watching 'This Week' on Sunday, it was great to see the Howard Dean that we all know and love. That is the Fightin' Dean! When Dean is a fighter, Republicans are scared (I'll explain later).

On This Week, Dean wasn't afraid to hit hard on everything from ethics to gas to the war in Iraq. Everything! He hit all bases. And what was impressive is that he did it his first few sentences. Hell, even George Stephanopoulos was impressed. And he went on! After the next few questions, he didn't back down. He even said that Rep. Jefferson (D-LA) should leave the house on his ethical conduct! Could you see the RNC Chair telling DeLay that he should leave the House? Exactly!

On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi had her ass handed to her on Meet The Press. Tim Russert pretty much made her look like a person that didn't know what she was talking about. In other words, she looked like she had no vision. It was one of those 'you are a politician, and you are no different than the GOP' moment. She was weak when answering almost every question thrown at her. And we elected her as Minority Leader? WHY!?!?!?

Pelosi is exactly the image that Laura Ingraham (argh...I can't stand her) was talking about on The Chris Matthews Show. She said that Democrats have no leaders or no plan or vision for the upcoming election. There is no "Contract With America" or no leaders like Newt Gingrich to show the American people the vision of the Democratic Party. She also said that the Democrats were in a 'just vote against Bush' mode. She feels that the Democrats think the voters will vote Democratic just because they don't like Bush, and she said this wouldn't work. I agree. We did that in 2004. Did it work? No!

Still, Howard Dean did the Democratic Party proud on Sunday. Again, he is a fighter and that scares Republicans.

Don't kid yourself, the Republicans wanted John Kerry as the Democratic nominee in 2004. Why? They knew he would be weak. They knew when Kerry was asked a question on a debate, he would answer them in the way that he did, with no meat or substance! He would do the typical politician answer.

On the other hand, imagine the Howard Dean that we saw on Sunday, debating Bush the same way in front of millions on national television. Dean would have kicked his ass.

So when you hear Republicans say 'we wanted Howard', don't let them fool you. He (Edwards or Clark as well), would have been Bush' worse nightmare.

Still, with all that said and done, it seems that Howie is one of the only Democrats out there fighting. Reid is silent, Pelosi gets her but kick on national television, other Democratic leaders are quiet. Again, no leaders. It seems that the only highly visible Democrats that are actually fighting are Senators Dick Durbin and Russ Feingold. I wish there were more.

Still, I think Democrats will do well in the mid-term elections. I don't expect the Democrats to win either house back. But if the Democrats close the gap to ten seats in the House and two to three in the Senate, they should be happy. Democrats need to quit saying they will win the House or Senate. Because if they don't, the Republicans will call it a victory, no matter how many seats they lost.

Overall though, it is good to see Howard Dean back and fighting. I felt that since he has been the DNC Chair, he has been kind of quiet compared to usual.

But....HE'S BACK!!!!!!

Moving forward on morality, boot Kennedys and Clintons.

For many years now, Democrats pride themselves as the party of the Kennedys and the Clintons. I will admit, they were great presidents. And even the non-presidents, yes, the Senators, aren't a bad group either.

But times have changed. With the 'moral battle' in our country today, is it a good idea to hold on to these icons of our past? I don't think so. We need a new vision.

I was planning on writing this blog before the Patrick Kennedy announcement today that he would go to rehab for his drug problem. But this recent news has just added more meat to the bone.

The recent book "Take It Back" by James Carville and Paul Begala (though I have a feeling that Begala did most of the writing) is a read that I recommend to any Democrat. It is a great book on how to debate Republicans and their knowledge. But, while I highly praise this book, they miss the point on the morality question.

They talk about how Democrats need to explain their views in a moral way to those who consider morality their main issue. They suggest using Bible quotes to reach these voters. I couldn't agree with them more.

But they do miss one MAIN point, and I think they do it on purpose. When talking about any moral issue to a Republican, no matter how well a Democrat makes their point, a Republican will say 'well, Clinton had sex in the Oval Office'!

Yep, that is it! No matter how much sense we make on issues and the morality of our views, the fact that Clinton had a blowjob outweighs any moral explanation of our views.

And, of course, Begala and Carville didn't mention this because they don't want to admit that Clinton did something 'wrong'.

Still, it is hard for Democrats to show that they support moral issues as long as we have 'loose' candidates out there. If we want to show we care about morality, we need to clean up our act. Simply picking a pro-life leader of the Senate Democrats doesn't do it.

We need to show that we aren't the party of the Kennedys or Clintons. It is really hard to talk morality with a Kennedy of Senate bumper sticker on the back of your car (which some smartass Republican will say that your car might end up at a bottom of a lake).

So, who do we bring into the fold? The first moral Democrat that comes to mind is Jimmy Carter. You cannot get any more moral than Jimmy! He should be the spokesperson for a 'Democratic Morality'.

Also, we need to promote more candidates that openly promote their faith as well. The 'moral' campaign that Democrats should look at is that of Mark Pryor's Senate campaign. In his commercials, he is open about his faith, even showing himself praying with his family as the dinner table. These type of commercials shouldn't be reserved to Republicans only.

These are the 'moral' candidates that we need to start promoting. We need to get the 'questionable types' out of the public light and say they do not represent the face of the Democratic Party. We need to show that we do care about morality. And being the party of the Kennedys and Clintons is contradictory to that spirit.

And if we clean up our act, then we can start talking about our issues in a moral way and not look like hypocrites.

Now, I am not saying that Nancy Pelosi needs to start quoting the Bible during her speeches. But when we have a 'clean' Democratic Party, it will be easier for her to talk about 'liberal compassion' in moral way. It will also be harder for the Republicans to trash us on our views as well.

It is time that we embrace our moral leaders in our party. It is also the time for those ultra-leftist in our party not to put down candidates who openly show their morality. Democrats can be insulting and not realize it. We need to respect all faiths, as we do races and sexes.

If we do, we can start making some inroads into the 'moral voters'.

Football, Movies and Republicans...

See, this is what Democrats need to figure out. It isn't about 'issues', but the person running.

The Montgomery County, PA Repubilcan Committee has endorsed Lynn Swann, AND THEY DON'T KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT HIM EXCEPT THAT HE PLAYED IN THE NFL.

If these people, who supposedly know politics, blindly support a candidate just because he 'caught a football' (which I don't know how that relates to deficit reduction, health care and other issues), imagine how many uneducated people are out there supporting Swann?!?!? And I personally feel that a good 85% of voters are uneducated.

The Democrats need to learn that politics isn't a 'debate' anymore, which is a shame. It is 'class president' all over again. The Chess Club President will NEVER defeat Varsity Football captain! Never!

This is how the process works. They (the Republicans) pick candidate who they think will 'win'. They don't care about their issues, they don't care about how they stand on certain things, they just care that a candidate can 'win'. As soon as that candidate 'wins', they go to Congress, or wherever, and vote the way the leadership wants them to vote. This is easy for the leadership to do since many of these football players and actors don't even know how government works in the first place.

If a newly elected member does what the leadership tells them to do (which is usually the case), then they can stay. If they don't, the leadership will simpily get a primary challenger against the new guy and defeat him in the primary by outspending them 10 to 1.

This is how the Republicans are winning elections. They know how to minipulate the voters! Democrats still figure that the person with the best 'issues' will win. WRONG! It hasn't happend lately.

I just wish Democrats would get at least a clue on this! Yeah, some do, but they aren't in the leadership. Too bad!

Hey Mormons! You are being played by the Republicans!

Since 1988 and the Presidential campaign of Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition has not only been a important part of the Republican Party, but many argue that they are driving force behind the party. Many can argue that 'Christian Values' Republicans have taken over the traditional "Lower Taxes, Less Spending" Republicans. This is totally understandable since it has been the Democrats that are showing that they are the party of less spending (but not nesseceraly less taxes).

One group of people that are for both "Christian Values" and "Less Taxes, Less Spending" are Mormons. Year after year, Mormon voters turn out in large numbers and usually vote Republican. Since the mid-1970s, Utah has been one of the, if not the, most Republican state in the nation. Prior to the mid-1970s, Utah was, well, a purple state!

So, let me ask the Mormons...why do you want to be Republicans when many of them do not consider you Christians?

Doug Kelly, former Chairman of the Christian Coalition of Montana flatout said "we do not considers Mormon a full Christian religion." Well, that pretty much says it right there.

So, what is all of the hub-bub about? Many people don't know why Mormons are not considered Christians by many Christians. It doesn't have anything to do with polygamy, Joseph Smith or any of the other things that one thinks of when the word 'Mormon' comes up.

I talked to the deacon of my church about it one time and he said that is has to do with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In most of Christianity (Catholic and all other Protestant demoninations), they consider these three to be one. As they say in the Catholic Church "one in substance and undivided." Mormons, on the other hand, think that these are seperate. As The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Section 130:22 says:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

So, if a Christian says the Father, Son and Holy Spirit must be one and undivided, then that Christian is correct, that Mormons aren't Christian.

But do Mormons think they are not Christian? No, and I agree with them. Yes, they might disagree on this 'techincality'. But they do think that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Isn't that enough?

So, Mormons, I ask again...why do you agree with a political party who has a leadership structure that doesn't consider you Christian? That would be like Democrats saying that minorities aren't really people. Do you think the minorities would stay with the Democratic Party? Hell no!

Another thing that I notice Mormons pride themselves on is helping others. The Church gives millions to developing countries (though sometimes it is to countries like Zimbabwe, which I HIGHLY disagree with). Individual Mormons give a lot of money and items to charity. Deseret Industries is bigger in Utah than the Salvation Army is in other states. They have a compasion for helping the poor.

So Mormons, I ask you again, why don't you want to be Democrats...a political party that most agree (even Republicans) are "Champions for the Poor". Instead you want to be associated with a political party whose presidential candidate takes millions from Enron (Bush's highest contributor) who, in turn, took their millions from their employees pay and retirement! Doesn't sound like something that would jive with your faith, does it?

And finally, the issues of tax and spending. Yes, Democrats support taxes. Democrats also do a poor job educating the public what taxes are used for. They don't tell people it is to build roads, put police on the streets, have a postal service, military, social security. The list goes on.

But we also support less spending. Reagan spent a lot, so have the two Bushes! But everyone knew that Clinton reduced the deficit and really cut spending. His government was the smalles government since when? Yes, another Democrat, Lyndon Johnson. So, when it comes to spending, Democrats are the only choice!

So, would you rather be associated with a political party that thinks you aren't Christian, doesn't care about charity and snuggles with people like Kenneth Lay and put our country into sprialing debt? Or would you rather be associated with a party that is surely 'conpasionate', is economically responsible and welcomes all religions? I think that is an easy one.

But, being a Catholic, all of this is just talk. In my three years in Utah, I have learned one thing, Mormons only listen to other Mormons. I could make the best argument on the face of the earth, but if I am not going to the temple every week, or whatever, they thing I don't know what I am talking about. If you haven't read the Book of Mormon (which most non-Mormons don't), you can't 'understand' them, many of them say.

I feel most religions have this problem, but I think it is more widespread with Mormons than the others.

But I know there are Mormons out there that feel the same way I do. The Democratic Party needs to recruit these people to talk to Mormons in a Mormon way and explain to them why they don't share the same values as the RNC.

Mormons are starting to become more and more powerful, and Democrats need to understand this. And, in reality, Mormons are more liberal than you think. Therefore, we don't have to sacrafice any of our key values to win religious voters. If there is any religious organizations that the Democrats can win over, it is the Mormons.

But I don't think the Democratic Party understands this! And, again, another lost opportunity.

Go Seahawks!

Well, today is Super Bowl XL!

A lot of people don't know it, but I am a diehard Seahawks fan. When I was a kid in Chicago, I liked the Seahawks more than I did the Chicago Bears. But since moving away from Chicago, I have become more of a Chicago team fan. I'll show you:

Before I moved to Florida:
Football - Seattle Seahawks
Baseball - Toronto Blue Jays
Hockey - Calgary Flames

Now:
Football - Chicago Bears
Baseball - Chicago Cubs
Hockey - Chicago Blackhawks

Though I do follow the Bears and Cubs, I feel that I just do that because I am proud of the city of Chicago. I think it is the greatest city on earth. Yet....the Cubs....need I say more.

But when it comes to the Cubs, I think I didn't really like th Cubs until I moved here. When I tell people I am from Chicago, the automatically say "Sox or Cubs". I just always said Cubs because I am from the north and west burbs. On the other hand, everyone on my mom's mom side of the family are Sox fans. Go figure. My dad is a big Cubs fan, be he has been one all of his life.

Maybe it is time for me to go back to my original teams? Yeah, that really looks good when Seattle is in the Super Bowl.

I guess it comes down to who I would rather see in the championship game.

So, lets examine:
Blue Jays v. Cubs - would go for Cubs, I think, but it would tear me. I think I would only go for the Cubs because of 'The Billy Goat Curse". But if the curse wasn't there, I would go for the Blue Jays in a 'non cursed' competition.

But that was then and this is now. I know the Cubs roster a lot better than I do the Blue Jays. I really don't know the Blue Jays at all. There is no Dave Stieb, Jimmy Key, Tony Fernandez, Jorge Bell, Jesse Barfield, Rance Mulliniks, Garth Iorg. Therefore, I would have to say that I am a Cubs fan now.

Seahawks v. Bears - again, since the Seahawks haven't won a Super Bowl, I would go for them right now. But my favorite players were Jim Zorn, Steve Largent (yuck...to think of him now!), Curt Warner, Dave Kreig. But when I look back at the Bears, hell, even the '85 Bears, I only have one favorite Bear, and that is Gay Fencik. I wasn't a big Singletary, Perry, Dent, or for that fact (I know, shoot me) a Walter Payton fan. I, honestly, liked Curt Warner than Payton.

But, like with the Blue Jays, that was then and this is now. I really don't know the Seahawks. I watched the Bears a lot more now. I didn't really follow the Seahawks since the early 1990s. Therefore, I would have to say that I am more of a Bears fan now.

Blackhawks v. Flames - since the lockout, I really don't care about hockey. I use to watch it all the time. But now, I have no idea who the players. No Gretzkys, Kurris, Messiers, Loobs, Mike Vernons. That was the good old days. And when the Flames played in the Stanley Cup final two years ago, I was going for them more people I didn't want Tampa to win instead of Calgary winning. Therefore, I don't know if I really have a favorite hockey team.

And you ask about basketball. I HATE basketball. When you touch someone, you get a foul! If you stand in the wrong place, a whistle! If you look at someone the wrong way, you might get thrown out of the NBA. To me, it is a pussy sport. Never liked it! Now if they take away those whistles and put some tackling in there, I might watch it. But it is the only sport that has NO protective devices. Hell, even baseball players wear a helmet!

But my new favorite sport is Aussie Rules football! Yeah, they don't wear padding, I know. But they also don't get a 'whistle' for touching someone!

Anyway, I think I am a Bears and Cubs fan. I will still go for the Seahawks because I love the team. But, who knows, I might be a Seahawks fan again :)

I can't stick with the Bloc anymore.

During the last Canadian election cycle, I supported the Bloc Quebecois like I do in every election. I have always supported movements throughout the world that portray themselves as 'protecting their heritage'. I saw the Bloc as another group that promoted these values. But after further evaluation, I have determined that I have been mislead. I can no longer support the Bloc in the future.

I feel that the Bloc isn't running to 'protect the French Canadians', but to just be a thorn in the side of Canadian politics. I honestly don't see any reason for their existance.

For years, I agreed with their line of B.S., Quebec is better on their own, yada yada yada! And as a person that is living in a place where there is an increasing amount of Spanish speaking people, I can somewhat understand their worries.

But, I asked myself...isn't the official language of Canada BOTH French and English? Isn't it true that French is on official government buildings as far away as Alberta and British Columbia, where there aren't that many French speakers? What are they complaining about then?

Then I thought that it might have to do with discrimination.

I have been a strong supporter of Sinn Fein in Ireland for a long time. One of their main arguments is that there is widespread discrimination against Catholics by the Protestant community. Looking at the unployment figures, this is a stone cold fact. In the most staunch Protestant areas, unemployment is down around 3%, a number the Clinton Administration would even be jealous of. But in the strongest Catholic areas, such as Derry City, umemployment is as high as 23%. This trend between Catholic and Protestant communities is consistant in all Northern Irish cities.

But in Quebec, I find there to be little difference. Yes, Quebec's unemployment rate is 1.4% higher than the rest of the country, but I highly doubt that this has to do with English employers discriminating against their French counterparts. Newfoundland and Labrador is at 15% unemployment.

As I see it, Canada has done all it can to include French Canadians into their society. They haven't done anything to destroy their heritage. In fact, by making French an official language as well, they seem to be working toward making French Canadians more comfortable within Canada.

So, this is what I ask...what does the Bloc stand for? Yes, they support an independent Quebec, but why? What has Canada not done that the Bloc wants? How has Canada 'hurt' Quebec. Yes, there is the Sponsorship Scandal...but what else? A scandal is a scandal and they will always be around. I just haven't seen anything in Canadian politics where the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP or others have been anti-Quebec. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that all parties tried to reach out to Quebec voters, especially the Conservatives.

Therefore, I can no longer support the Bloc. I do not see what they stand for.

As for their argument that they want to be independent of Canada, I don't know what Canada "hasn't" offered Quebec. Honestly, it seems to me that Canada has done more than enough to satisfy the French Canadian population.

IRA Statement Historical

Today is a historical day in the history in the occupied six counties of Northern Ireland. The Irish Republican Army has announced that it will end the armed struggle for a 32 County republic. After years of bombings and murders by both sides, this is, hopefully, the first step toward a peaceful Ireland.

Now that the IRA has made this large step, what will happen next? Both side, Unionists and Nationalists, have to decide the future of Ulster. The ending of the armed struggle is only one part of the equation. Many other questions need to be answered.

Sectarian violence is the first issue that needs to be addressed. Sectarian July 12th marches need to be scaled back. Protestants marching through Catholic neighborhoods with the 'we kicked your Taig asses 300 years ago' attitude needs to end. The IRA statement will not end this violence. I don't know if there is a lack of understanding about the feelings of the Catholics toward these marches, but it should the the responsibility of the Unionist politicians to put out these sectarian flames. But the Unionists politicians will not do this alone. Prime Minister Tony Blair should 'require' Unionist politicians to educate the Protestants about Irish Catholic history. Gusty Spence, cold blooded sectarian killer turned peace advocate, would be a perfect spokesman to heal this sectarian strife.

Another issue that needs to be addressed is Loyalist paramilitary organizations and their actions. The IRA are decommissioning all of their arms and putting them beyond use. Will the Ulster Defence Association, Loyalist Volunteer Force and Ulster Volunteer Force do the same? If the IRA stick to their word, they have shown good faith toward the peace process. Hopefully, this will pressure the Unionist communities to ask for Loyalist paramilitaries to disarm. The problem is that it seems the British government is 'okay' with 'pro-British government' paramilitaries. Again, Blair should make a bold statement on this issue as well.


The peace process in Northern Ireland is a two-way street. The IRA cannot disarm without there being something in return. Things like the July 12th marches in Catholic neighborhoods and the anti-Catholic rhetoric of Ian Paisley needs to end. Mr. Paisley needs to be decommissioned. His words have done as much harm to Northern Ireland as the Provos have. Many people who have joined the UVF, UDA, LVF and so on did so with anti-Catholic speeches of Ian Paisley.

With this, it is time that the Unionist political parties, especially the DUP, look for more moderate leaders that can bring this type of change to Northern Ireland. 'The Pope is the Anti-Christ' attitude will NOT bring peace to Northern Ireland. It is time for the DUP to dump their founder and leader. If Ian Paisley speaks for the majority of Protestants in Northern Ireland, then there will never be peace. I feel that it is time for Ian Paisley to step down and hand over control to respectable leaders.

The DUP needs Peter Robinson. He is the voice of reason for the DUP. While he is strong and sticks to his convictions, he also understands that being ignorant and stuborn to the issues will not move the peace process foward. I feel that Mr. Robinson wants to see peace in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, Ian Paisley is one of the founders of The Troubles. The last thing the DUP needs is another Paisley as well. If they pick Nigel Dodds, Paisley Jr., or, yes, Peter's wife Iris Robinson, I feel that sectarian violence will continue to move forward.

With this IRA statement, the ball is in the DUP's court. If they want to comply and really make change and bring the peace process to Northern Ireland, they can do so. But if the DUP wants to stall, even with the ending of IRA violence and complete political participation by Republicans, this will just prove that the Unionists want to continue to rule Ulster with an iron fist and really do not want peace or co-existance. If they continue down this road, then the Republicans will gain more support in the United Kingdom, Ireland and around the world for their cause. No matter what the outcome, this move will benefit the Republican cause.

Again, this is a masterful political move by Gerry Adams. Now we will just wait and see.

Republicans using constitutional amendments for 'higher cause'?

The 2004 Presidential election was a shock to most people. Many experts thought that Kerry had the election in the bag. Most experts had the look of shock on their faces as the time tickled away and it looked like George Bush was the winner. But why did Bush win? Did he win because he was a 'great candidate'? Did he win because the Democrats picked the worse possible candidate? I personally think that they used more 'outside' tactics to win. What were those tactics? Constitutional ammendments.

While people considered the Presidential election their main priority, I feel that statewide constitutional amendments were the real driving force behind Bush's reelection. And which amendment was the main driving force? The gay marriage amendment. With the exception of some religious zealot states, like Utah, Mississippi and Oklahoma, the gay marriage amendment was voted on in 'key presidential election' states. As you know, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Arkansas, Georgia and Montana were all states that were considered 'purple' before the people came out to vote. And in most of those states, Kerry preformed worse than Gore in 2000.

The Republicans were able to use the gay marriage amendment to associate "democrats" with being "pro-gay marriage", which most of the electorate, Democrats and Republicans alike, opposed. And in a counrty where 22% of people voted on 'moral issues', the Democrats did a poor job of convincing the voters that their candidates were 'independent' on this issue.

Lets take the state of Ohio for example. Most thought that Kerry would win in a close election because the economy was considered the 'big issue' in Ohio. Many people had lost their jobs and many thought this would lead to a backlash against Republicans. But jobs and the economy only polled 1% higher than moral issues in Ohio according to the Gallup/CNN/USA Today exit polls in Ohio.
The images of 'men kissing' scared the Ohio electorate, leading to a Bush win.

While people's voting trends on 'moral issues' increased, so did the amount of Democrats supporting 'marriage protection' amendments. In Ohio, 44% of Democrats supported the gay marriage ban, in Michigan 45%, in Montana 49%, Arkansas 65%, Georgia 64%. Only Oregon, which saw an increase in support for Kerry over Gore, saw very little Democratic support for the marriage protection amendment, at only 28%.

This is the time when Democrats need to see the Republican tactics and use them to their advantage. Without a doubt, these issues were used to influence the larger race, the presidential race. When talking to some of the people in Utah that supported Amendment 3, they could tell me very little about the actual amendment, but were able to tell me the biography of George Bush to a tee and why we should vote for him. The creators of these amendments could care less if their amendments passed or not, as long as it helped elect Bush.

Therfore, we democrats need to learn how to turn this tactic to our advantage. We need to do 'reverse tactics'. There are very few issues that people agree with Democrats on that isn't already law. For example, we cannot do a constitutional amendment in Florida to legalize abortion, because it is already legal. But if we use reverse psychology, and try to get an amendment on the ballot to outlaw abortion (making it look like the Republicans are actually pushing it), then Democratic candidate will be the benefactors. We can use this and other issues as well, like prayer in school and the posting of the ten commandments.

We also need to make 'wedge' issue the backbone of these amendments as well. Democrats advocate amendments like independent redistricting councils, and other things the average person doesn't give a piss about.

We can actually use 'moral' issues AGAINST Republicans. But I just feel that the Democrats just don't get it.

Dave's New Northern Ireland Parliament Predictions

East Antrim - I still stand by what I said months ago. For some odd reason, I thought that Jr. ran last time for this seat. But he didn't. Makes me feel like an idiot. But still, it even makes the point stronger that Roy Beggs Sr., who has held this seat for decades, will lose it to Sammy.
Prediction: Wilson of the DUP by 3-4%
Actual - Wilson by 22.99%

East Belfast - Peter Robinson has held this seat since 1979 and it isn't changing.
Prediction - Robinson by 25 points
Actual - Robinson by 19.06%

East Londonderry - This can be the closest race in the entire UK. There are three parties that can really make an impact. Gregory Campbell is the current MP, but after the last Assembely elections, Francis Brolly really has a chance. The final result will be determined by this factor - who will take away more votes? Will the DUP take more votes away from the UUP than Sinn Fein will take away from the SLDP? But the DUP has strengthened in this seat.
Prediction - Campbell by 4%
Actual - Campbell by 21.76%

Fermanagh & South Tyrone - This will be one of the closest watched races in the UK. First term MP Gildernew will face stiff competition from UUP turn DUP MLA Arlene Foster. It was a high profile news report when Foster switch. But since then, Foster hasn't been in the news much, while Gildernew has.
Prediction - Gildernew by 8 points
Actual - Gildernew by 9.39%

Foyle - Earlier I said that I feel that Mitchell McLaughlin would be able to pull off the upset in this seat. Since then, I have had some reservations. The backlash against Sinn Fein could actually hurt McLaughlin, one of the party's top leaders. But don't let Hume's large margin last time fool you. This race is A LOT closer than it seems. In fact, BBC is saying this is a seat that Sinn Fein can take away. But, I am still thinking that Mark Durkan will squeek by in this seat. But if anyone wants to pick an upset in the Parliament races, this would be the race to look at.
Prediction: Durkan by 1%
Actual - Durkan by 13.06%

Lagan Valley - This district votes for the "person" and not the "party". While this seat has always been held by the UUP, it has been held by hardliner UUP members, like Jim Molyneaux. My pick still stands.
Prediction - Donaldson by at least 30%
Actual - Donaldson by 33.17%

Mid-Ulster - Since the Mid Ulster seat has been redrawn, it has served Sinn Fein well, and will continue to do so. Ian McCrea brings a fresh DUP face to this seat.
Prediction - McGuinness by 25 points
Actual - McGuinness by 24.16%

Newry & Armagh - Seamus Mallon will not seek re-election to this seat. Sinn Fein really railroaded the SDLP in the Assembly race here in 2003. This will be a seat Sinn Fein should gain.
Prediction - Conor Murphy by 8%
Actual - Murphy by 16.16%

North Antrim - Duh!
Prediction - Paisley Sr. by 35 points
Actual - Paisley by 39.12%

North Belfast - Nigel Dodds took over this seat with force from former MP Cecil Walker. This DUP party leader isn't expected to lose his seat. I don't think he will either, but watch and see what Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly will do. If the Ardoyne turns out, it will be closer than many expect.
Prediction - Dodds by only 10%
Actual - Dodds by 16.99%

North Down - This was a seat that I thought might be confusing to predict. But with the candidates announced, it seems that it will be easier to figure it out. It looks as if Robert McCartney will not seek the seat which he held until 2001. But the difference was that most DUP support went behind McCartney in 2001, as they didn't have a candidate of their own. This one will be extremely close. DUP might be an upset here.
Prediction - Lady Hermon by 1-2%
Actual - Hermon by 15.13%

South Antrim - David Burnside is the current MP. William McCrea, who was drawn out of his Mid Ulster seat in 1997, has been a strong candidate. But since Burnside has been a strong opponent to David Trimble in the UUP (supporting Trimble's resignation), UUP voters that will more than likey switch to the DUP in other races might stay home in this one. But it will still be close.
Prediction - Burnside by 3 points
Actual - McCrea by 9.08%

South Belfast - Is the 7th time a charm? Well, It might be for Alasdair McDonnell. This largely mixed Catholic/Protestant area usually gives way to moderate candidate, like those in the SDLP and UUP. Martin Smyth will not run for reelection. While the area is mixed, it usually trends to the Unionist cause. But recently, Catholics have really made strides. The Alliance Party did well here in their hayday, and I don't understand why they still don't.
Prediction - Michael McGimpsey by 8 points
Actual - McDonnell by 3.86%

South Down - Another border county area with a mix off all people, unionists, nationalists, loyalists and republicans. Makes for interesting elections. I didn't make a prediction on this race earlier because I didn't know who the SDLP candidate would be. But McGrady has decided to run again. This is a smart move by the SDLP as this might be the only seat that they retain.
Prediction - McGrady by 15 points
Actual - McGrady by 18.97

Strangford - Peter Robinson's wife, Iris, has made a name for herself in Strangford. The home of former Ulster Unionists, like Brian Faulkner, is now trending to become a strong DUP area. It isn't yet, but soon will be.
Prediction - Robinson by at least 10 points
Actual - Robinson by 35.24

Upper Bann - Well, I am sure they didn't want it to happen, but I feel that it will. David Trimble, with his rich UUP heritage and Nobel Peace prize and all, has really pissed off a lot of people in his own party. He has led the party in the wrong direction and the UUP isn't happy. The fact that he won the election to be retained as party leader is now seen as a strong arm move by Trimble and his bullies. The people of Upper Bann almost voted Trimble out last time, but this time it will happen. David Simpson has been a key player in the DUP and is a stonger candidate than he has ever been.
Prediction - David Simpson beats David Trimble by 6 points
Actual - Simpson by 11.92%

West Belfast - Watch Nigel Dobbs wife, Diane, in this race. If they can consolidate votes in The Shankill, they can start being a force in the area. Yeah right! Adams easily. But watch Dodds, it will be interesting.
Prediction - Adams by 45%
Actual - Adams by 55.91%

West Tyrone - This new district has been really beneficial to Republicans. Pat Doherty has done a great job being the MP. Nobody can really challenge him. It seems that Dr. Kieran Deeny will be a candidate for the seat afterall. But, it will not matter as this is not a transfer vote type election like the Assembly races are.
Prediction - Pat Doherty by 16 points
Actual - Doherty by 11.51%

One message will help Democrats

Being part of the Democratic Party as long as I have (going on 13 years now), I have noticed there are many differing views. There are those who are totally liberal to totally conservative. I'm personally someone that is socially conservative and economically liberal. We have people from different backgrounds, from George Wallace to Al Sharpton. Yet, we consider ourselves a big tent that includes everyone.

Well, there are many that think that our 'big tent' is being hijacked. Some say that it is being hijacked by the right and that Clinton has lead us in the wrong direction. Others, like myself, say that it has been hijacked from the left since 1964. No doubt about it, there are many people who feel that the Democratic Party isn't serving 'them', but the other side.

These arguments have not only caused problems in the party, but have actually forced people to leave the party. Wether they become a Republican, Green or whatever, they feel that they no longer want to fight for their cause and just don't want to deal with it anymore.

I was one of these people. Coming from a conservative state where the Democratic Party is very liberal didn't leave much room for opposing views. In Utah, these very liberal views don't help Democrats get elected. In a state that is 70%-30% Republican, the Democrats need to find an issue will make 21% of Republicans vote Democratic.

We can't use abortion, gay rights, taxes, health care, and many other issues of the day. Hell, we can't even get general support for any specific issues in our own party, so how can we have the party unite behind one issue?

But there is one value that our party can unite behind, and that is helping the 'average American'. No matter what your view is on many of the issues facing us today, I think that every Democrat can agree that they support helping the lower and middle class FAMILIES!! THERE, my friends, are the Democratic 'family values'. We support keeping our jobs in America and giving people affordable heath care. These are our family values and we should start making that the Democratic Party's 'campaign message'. No matter how liberal or conservative you are, all Democrats could unite behind this message.

So, my Democratic friends, lets make this our central issue. Let us not fight with Republicans on abortion, marriage amendments and other issues, but who can best help the 'average American'. Yes, Republicans might say "we give the average Americans tax cuts." But let us remind them that they made more money under Clinton while producing budget surpluses and reducing the national debt, unlike our current President. Yes, it IS the economy stupid, and the Democratic apporach to the economy helps the 'average American'

Sorry...I just can't do it. I'm a Democrat.

Over the last month, I have been thinking about my switch to the Republican Party. I have always been a moderate-to-conservative Democrat and usually at odds with my political party. These odds have not only caused many heated arguments, but have also made me feel very uncomfortable. I disagree with my party on many issues, mostly social. I have disagreed with my party on affirmative action, gay rights, school vouchers, gun issues and many others.

Because of these arguments, I just left. I felt that the best option for me was to join a party where I agree with most of their issues. Though I disliked many Republicans, I felt that I could maybe get along with them. I thought that, hell, maybe I can agree with the Reagan and Bush supporters. I was wrong.

I have said for years that the reason that I wasn't a Republican was because I disliked most Republican candidates and elected officials. I think that many that know me would say that I have been one of the Republican's strongest critics. Changing my opinion on those politicians I just can't do.

But the reason that I am returning to the party is not because of issues, but because of two things, my heart and my fight. There have been those who feel the Democratic Party has been "hijacked from the right". As someone who is a traditional Democrat, I feel that the Democrats, since 1964, have been "hijacked from the left." My family, mostly from the south, have been Democrats since the party was formed. They were all very conservative but where Democrats at heart. Yes, I am not a northeastern Democrat, but I am truely a southern Dixiecrat.

The fight, though, is something that I not only welcome, but I think needs to happen. I left because I felt the party has become too far left. Leaving the party is basically saying 'they got the best of me', and that shouldn't be the case. Nobody should ever get the 'best of you', and a fight of ideas is what is needed right now.

But I have been saying for years that I think that most Democrats have been, well, pussies. They haven't been fighting the Republicans at all. Not specifically on particularly issues, but 'right or wrong' decisions. I was opposed to the war in Iraq, and the Democrats didn't fight the President on this issue. They are just supporting the President in order to look 'patriotic'! And I though that this was going to continue into the next four years of Bush's Administration, but it looks like I 'might' be wrong. After Evan Bayh said that he is going vote against Rice for Secretary of State, maybe the Democrats are showing a little courage to fight and stand up.

Therefore, I am becoming a Democrat again. I feel that I am not the only one in the party that feels that it has been 'sold out to the far left'. And now Democrats are realizing that they NEED to not be so closed minded to people who have different views. I'm glad the Democrats are looking listening to pro-life Democrats, though I am pro-choice. But this is just the start. The party needs to listen to people who are pro-marriage, pro-gun and conservative on other issues.

If the Democrats will truely listen, then they will start winning elections. I think the Democrats, after all these years, might finally 'get it'.

Is Florida Failing in Producing Leaders?

Who is Johnny Byrd?

This is a question that many in Florida asked when they were looking at Republican candidates for the 2004 U.S. Senate race. But unfamiliar names are starting to become common-place in statewide races.

Sould Byrd have been an unknown? In most states, a former Speaker of the House would usually be a front runner if they are seeking higher office. But Byrd wasn't. In all of the polls conducted, Byrd never polled over 10%. Why?

The system in Florida makes it hard for a person in the Legislature ever to become a leader within the state, either because of rules or tradition.

First is tradition. It is a tradition in the Legislature that the House Speaker and Senate President can only serve one two-year term. In other states a person can be a speaker for years. The limits in Florida makes it so that a people that hold these positions are rarely talked about in the public. Nobody knew Byrd, that was his problem. If he was able to serve for 8 to 10 years as speaker, then he might have had a better chance in the primaries.

The other thing that limits leadership in the Legislature is the obvious term limit. By the time a person can become a leader, it is time for him/her to leave office. Usually somebody becomes speaker in their last two years in the House.

Where do they go after they are term limited? Some go to their local county commissions, some take other county or city positions. While this is an increase in salary, it usually isn't considered a 'step up' in political status. Others might be lucky and run for State Senate if there is an opening.

There are others though, like Byrd, that feel that they can run for higher office. But in recent times, legislators have rarely been elected to a statewide office. Out of the three most visable positions (the 2 US Senate Seats and the Governor), the last candidate to be elected directly from the Legislature was Bob Graham in 1978. The last candidate to be directly elected from the Legislature for any statewide position was Sandra Mortham in 1994, ten years ago.

Because of these limits to the legislators and their restrictions on holding leadership positions for multiple terms, only higher profile candidates have been winning these high profile races, like Congressmen, former statewide office holders, former statewide losers and federal secretaries.

Could ending term limits and traditional limits for Speaker and President create higher quality of leaders in Florida. There is only one way to find out. When people like Graham, Chiles and others were elected directly from the Legislature, there were no term limits. In fact, out of all the people who have been term limited and have decided to run for statewide office, not one has been elected. Changing the rules is the only way to bring real leadership to Florida and to give Floridians a choice of candidates that they have actually heard of.

Letter to the Editor (Orlando Sentinal): Understanding Issues

As former vice president of the Central Florida Young Democrats, I am glad to see the increase of Democratic voters in Orange County. But will the Orange County Democratic Party use these newfound riches to their advantage?

In the June 5 article "Registration gains please Democrats," Democratic Party Chairman Doug Head said, "The Republican Party has been standing still in Orange County for four years."

But I think the Democrats are the ones who have been standing still. Recently, Democratic participation in local elections has been dismal. In the 2002 election, there were more Libertarians running for state House than there were Democrats. This year, all of our current incumbent Democratic state legislators have Democratic primary opponents.

But even with this increase in registration, the Orange County Democratic Party still fails to understand the local issues. In House District 49, held by Republican John Quinones, the Democratic Party thought it would win because the "numbers were right." Instead, Quinones reached out to the voters, understood the issues and won the seat by 8 percent, in a district where there are nearly 9,000 more Democratic voters.

This increase in Democratic voter registration will work only if the Orange County Democratic Party uses it to the party's advantage. Head needs to work harder to recruit quality candidates. The Democratic Party also needs to understand the local issues and take a stance that is popular with the electorate. If the Democrats do this, they might win a few seats.

David Trotter
Orlando

Letter to the Editor on Northern Ireland

Salt Lake Tribune "Letter to the Editor":

It's a shame that the peace process in Northern Ireland has broken down yet again. Though the British prime minister and the Irish Taoiseach have agreed to hold elections, David Trimble has again refused the offer of the IRA to decommission its weapons. Yet Mr. Trimble hasn't asked loyalist or unionist paramilitary organizations to decommission theirs. While the IRA has committed much of the violence during the 33-year history of "The Troubles," loyalist and unionist paramilitaries have killed nearly as many innocent civilians. This seems to be something that David Trimble conveniently forgets.

According to the Conflict Archive on the Internet (CAIN), the leading statistical resource on Northern Irish violence, the IRA has been linked to 497 civilian killings. On the other hand, loyalist organizations, like the Ulster Defence Association-Ulster Freedom Fighters, and the Ulster Volunteer Force, have killed 432. The largest loss of life occurred in the Dublin bombings on May 17, 1974, committed by the UVF. Thirty-three people were killed in these bombings, more than even the Omagh bombing on Aug. 15, 1998. Since the Omagh bombing, loyalists have killed 28 while republican organizations, like the IRA, have killed three.

It would be nice if Mr. Trimble and his Ulster Unionist Party realized there are two sides to this conflict. Maybe then there would finally be peace in Northern Ireland.

David Trotter
Salt Lake City